Supreme Court Hearing on 14th Amendment and Trump

[Anonymous]

The officer vs office argument is ridiculous. It's disappointing Gorsuch has come back to it. I think that the states rights argument has more validity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right wing justices claim if they allow the Colorado ruling to stand, then it would be mayhem from now on, with states trying to push candidates off the ballot any time they want. Murray counters that it would be highly unlikely to happen repeatedly - it's that Trump's actions were so egregious that this is happening now.

Murray’s argument is weak. Of course this would open the floodgates.

Why? If Trump murdered someone and we sent him to jail for it, would that open the floodgates to accusations that Democrats committed murder even if they never killed anyone?

The crux of this is that Trump tried to overthrow our government. Other candidates for office - Republican and Democrat - did not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty clear threat by the SC Justices that Republican states are going to use this to disqualify Democrat candidates en masse, if the Court disqualifies Trump.

Sure, if a Dem participated in an insurrection, they should be dq'd. I don't think any Dem is disagreeing with that.

I’m sure a Dem would disqualify that allowing a mass invasion of illegal immigrants qualifies as an insurrection. But that’s where this would be headed. It’s about how states define an insurrection going forward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty clear threat by the SC Justices that Republican states are going to use this to disqualify Democrat candidates en masse, if the Court disqualifies Trump.

Sure, if a Dem participated in an insurrection, they should be dq'd. I don't think any Dem is disagreeing with that.

Republicans are arguing that they, the Republicans, will make bad faith accusations against Democrats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right wing justices claim if they allow the Colorado ruling to stand, then it would be mayhem from now on, with states trying to push candidates off the ballot any time they want. Murray counters that it would be highly unlikely to happen repeatedly - it's that Trump's actions were so egregious that this is happening now.

Murray’s argument is weak. Of course this would open the floodgates.

Not if the SC, as he suggests, were to define insurrection more precisely.

That’s a role for congress not the courts.

[Anonymous]

Kavanaugh blathers again and does not advance the discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty clear threat by the SC Justices that Republican states are going to use this to disqualify Democrat candidates en masse, if the Court disqualifies Trump.

Sure, if a Dem participated in an insurrection, they should be dq'd. I don't think any Dem is disagreeing with that.

I’m sure a Dem would disqualify that allowing a mass invasion of illegal immigrants qualifies as an insurrection. But that’s where this would be headed. It’s about how states define an insurrection going forward.

Republicans could argue that putting on shoes qualifies as an insurrection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty clear threat by the SC Justices that Republican states are going to use this to disqualify Democrat candidates en masse, if the Court disqualifies Trump.

Sure, if a Dem participated in an insurrection, they should be dq'd. I don't think any Dem is disagreeing with that.

Republicans are arguing that they, the Republicans, will make bad faith accusations against Democrats.

And that there would be no limiting factor to prevent them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right wing justices claim if they allow the Colorado ruling to stand, then it would be mayhem from now on, with states trying to push candidates off the ballot any time they want. Murray counters that it would be highly unlikely to happen repeatedly - it's that Trump's actions were so egregious that this is happening now.

Murray’s argument is weak. Of course this would open the floodgates.

Not if the SC, as he suggests, were to define insurrection more precisely.

That’s a role for congress not the courts.

No. The Supreme Court of the US also has that power. And when Murray suggested it, several times, not a single Justice advanced your argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty clear threat by the SC Justices that Republican states are going to use this to disqualify Democrat candidates en masse, if the Court disqualifies Trump.

Sure, if a Dem participated in an insurrection, they should be dq'd. I don't think any Dem is disagreeing with that.

I’m sure a Dem would disqualify that allowing a mass invasion of illegal immigrants qualifies as an insurrection. But that’s where this would be headed. It’s about how states define an insurrection going forward.

Republicans could argue that putting on shoes qualifies as an insurrection.

Now you’re getting it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right wing justices claim if they allow the Colorado ruling to stand, then it would be mayhem from now on, with states trying to push candidates off the ballot any time they want. Murray counters that it would be highly unlikely to happen repeatedly - it's that Trump's actions were so egregious that this is happening now.

Murray’s argument is weak. Of course this would open the floodgates.

Not if the SC, as he suggests, were to define insurrection more precisely.

That’s a role for congress not the courts.

Umm, it is the courts job to interpret words in the constitution. That pretty foundational.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty clear threat by the SC Justices that Republican states are going to use this to disqualify Democrat candidates en masse, if the Court disqualifies Trump.

Sure, if a Dem participated in an insurrection, they should be dq'd. I don't think any Dem is disagreeing with that.

I’m sure a Dem would disqualify that allowing a mass invasion of illegal immigrants qualifies as an insurrection. But that’s where this would be headed. It’s about how states define an insurrection going forward.

It's where it would be headed but that doesn't mean we should give in to states like Texas, who are going to use some stretched, warped view to engage in political terrorism. Immigration, and disagreements over it, is in no rational, sensible, sane person's mind, an "insurrection."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right wing justices claim if they allow the Colorado ruling to stand, then it would be mayhem from now on, with states trying to push candidates off the ballot any time they want. Murray counters that it would be highly unlikely to happen repeatedly - it's that Trump's actions were so egregious that this is happening now.

Murray’s argument is weak. Of course this would open the floodgates.

Not if the SC, as he suggests, were to define insurrection more precisely.

That’s a role for congress not the courts.

No. The Supreme Court of the US also has that power. And when Murray suggested it, several times, not a single Justice advanced your argument.

Zero chance this ruling is going to be decided by SCOTUS defining insurrection. It’s not going to happen. They want to sidestep the politics of all of this and the easiest way out is to decide that the presidency doesn’t fall under the wording of the amendment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty clear threat by the SC Justices that Republican states are going to use this to disqualify Democrat candidates en masse, if the Court disqualifies Trump.

Sure, if a Dem participated in an insurrection, they should be dq'd. I don't think any Dem is disagreeing with that.

I’m sure a Dem would disqualify that allowing a mass invasion of illegal immigrants qualifies as an insurrection. But that’s where this would be headed. It’s about how states define an insurrection going forward.

It's where it would be headed but that doesn't mean we should give in to states like Texas, who are going to use some stretched, warped view to engage in political terrorism. Immigration, and disagreements over it, is in no rational, sensible, sane person's mind, an "insurrection."

It doesn’t matter what you think. A state like Texas absolutely could rule Biden guilty of insurrection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty clear threat by the SC Justices that Republican states are going to use this to disqualify Democrat candidates en masse, if the Court disqualifies Trump.

Sure, if a Dem participated in an insurrection, they should be dq'd. I don't think any Dem is disagreeing with that.

Republicans are arguing that they, the Republicans, will make bad faith accusations against Democrats.

And that there would be no limiting factor to prevent them.

Well, let's inject common sense here. They won't impeach Biden and they won't impeach Mayorkas. No one is going to slap an insurrection disability on a random candidate who clearly has not engaged in insurrection. Most people on both sides of the aisle do live in the same reality and understand they need evidence in court.

So no, I don't think red states can just push out any Democrat they want.